The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Wentworth Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Fishermans Avenue, Southbourne, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH6 3SQ (01202) 422171

Provided and run by:
Velupillai Ilankovan

All Inspections

08 March and 18 April 2023

During a routine inspection

This was the first time we inspected the service. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff mostly had training in key skills, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. They mostly managed medicines well.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Managers made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and mostly had access to good information.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

However:

  • Staff did not always have the training required to keep patients and themselves safe.
  • Policies did not always contain the most up to date information to protect patients from harm.
  • Patient notes were not always complete.
  • Leaders did not always use reliable information systems to govern the service.

13 December 2016, 23 December 2016 and 11 April 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Wentworth clinic is operated by Mr Velupillai Ilankovan. The clinic had no overnight beds. Facilities include a treatment room, a recovery room, outpatient consultation room and two waiting areas.

The clinic provides 99% cosmetic surgery and one percent vascular surgery.

Prior to this focused inspection we carried out a planned inspection on 13 December 2016, and unannounced inspections on 14 December 2016 and 23 December 2016. Following this, we served a warning notice to the provider on 29 December 2016 requiring them to take urgent action by 31 January 2017. This was because the provider had not fully implemented their practising privileges policy. Consultants, who worked at the clinic, had not had full recruitments checks carried out.

The provider on the 10 February 2017 confirmed by email that the recruitment checks had been completed by 31 January 2017.

We undertook a focused inspection on 11 April 2017. This was to follow up on the warning notice served, and review the consultants practising privileges folders. On the inspection, we found the provider had taken the necessary steps to meet the requirements of the warning notice.

The provider had taken the following action in response to the Warning Notice:

  • Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks in relation to four consultants including the provider working at the Wentworth clinic.
  • Checks of hepatitis B vaccination status for two consultants where information missing.
  • Evidence of revalidation with GMC for consultant where missing.
  • The provider provided assurance evidence of up to date mandatory training for three consultants where missing.
  • The Wentworth Clinic Practising Privileges policy amended to reflect current Department of Health guidance in relation to blood borne infections.

We regulate cosmetic surgery service, but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate them. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary. Please refer to previous inspection report for information on our key findings at the previous inspection and action we have asked the provider to take in relation to other aspects of the service.

Professor Edward Baker

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

13, 14 and 23 December 2016

During a routine inspection

We do not currently have a legal duty to rate cosmetic surgery service. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • Implementation of recruitment procedures for consultants working under practising privileges.
  • Venous thromboembolism risk assessment needs to be undertaken and documented.
  • A pre-operative safety checklist used in the treatment room to ensure patient safety.
  • Monitoring of medicines fridge temperature for each day procedures are taking place, and include minimum and maximum range to ensure medicines are always stored in the correct temperature range.
  • Completion of a checklist confirming resuscitation equipment correct, clean and in date needs to be completed for each day patients treated in the clinic.
  • Theatre register record needs to be fully completed and include additional information to meet national standards.

We also found the following areas of good practice:

  • Patient outcomes following cosmetic surgery were audited, and the outcomes were positive.
  • Equipment we checked had been tested for electrical safety, and serviced as required.
  • Caring and compassionate staff.

26 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this announced inspection as part of our planned schedule of inspections. We did not speak with people who use the service due to the nature of the cosmetic procedures carried out. However, we looked at records of satisfaction surveys that had been carried out by the provider. We looked at 17 people's records. Procedures they had had carried out included mini face lifts, excision of skin tumours and laser therapy to improve skin condition.

Suitable arrangements were in place to gain consent for operations and procedures to be carried out. People were provided with sufficient information to allow them to make an informed decision.

Care and treatment was planned in a way which ensured that the health and safety of individuals was protected.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. Medications were stored, handled and administered safely in line with current legislation.

People received treatment in a suitable environment which was well maintained and equipment used was routinely checked and serviced to ensure it operated safely.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

16 December 2013

During a routine inspection

Wentworth dental practice is a part time private dental practice that is incorporated within Wentworth Clinic. On the day of our inspection we spoke with all of the staff who worked at the practice and two out of the three people who came for dental consultations that day.

People we spoke with gave complimentary views about the service they received at the practice. One person told us,"I've been coming here for many, many years and can't fault them in any way".

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People using the service were protected because staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

The provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

24, 29 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people that used the service. Comments about the service included "most impressive" and "first class". All people said that their treatment and procedure was explained to them. We saw records which confirmed that consent had been obtained before any treatment was given.

People's records of procedures clearly detailed what procedure they had and care received before and after their operation. Risks associated with surgery had been explained to people, and they had also been told what to expect when the operation had been done. Checks on people's wellbeing had been made once they had returned home.

The clinic had suitable infection control procedures in place and all areas were visibly clean. One person said the "surroundings were excellent".

Regular checks had been made on the safety and suitability of equipment used. Professional advice had been taken and acted upon to ensure that the use of lasers were safe and met relevant guidance.

Records related to the running of the service were stored securely and access was limited to some files to ensure confidentiality.